Features

American Presidential Stakes and the Supreme Court

Published

2 years ago

2024/07/7

Thilina Walpola

Donald Trump

by Rajan Philips

In a split ruling last Monday, apparently for the ages, the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court gave Donald Trump a get-out-of-jail card and virtually iron clad protection from criminal prosecution. The majority ruling grants Trump and “all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party,” absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, presumed immunity for all other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The latter immunity is arguably rendered more ostensible than real by the ruling’s rigid guidelines that forbid using facts from the sphere of official acts as evidence to prove criminality in unofficial acts. So much so, writing for the three liberal judges of the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor denounced the majority ruling and rejoindered: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

The incumbent president has said that he needs no such immunity as he would always exercise his powers within the law. So has every other president before Trump. Still labouring to survive his debate debacle, President Biden offered his own denunciation of the ruling from the White House and resounded Justice Sotomayor’s dissent with fear for the future of American democracy. Biden accused that the majority ruling has fundamentally undermined the long standing premise of American constitutional democracy: “There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”

From the academic end of the spectrum of critics, Harvard University’s Laurence Tribe has opined that the ruling “restructures dramatically the American system of government” and makes way for an “imperial presidency.” For Steve Vladeck at Georgetown University, Washington DC, the ruling “tilts power away from Congress towards the president, away from judges towards the president … (and) most importantly, it tilts the power away from we the people.” Only the impeachment process is left behind as a safeguard against presidential “high crimes and misdemeanours”, and one that has proved itself to be weak and ineffective – especially “in a late second term of a presidency, just as we saw how ineffective it was late in President Trump’s first term.”

Unitary Executive

There is much more to this ruling than Donald Trump. Trump provided a convenient pretext for the ruling and has become its more than accidental beneficiary. The six conservative judges seized the opportunity given to them by Trump and used it to further extend the ‘unitary executive’ agenda of establishing a strong executive president to rein in the allegedly overgrown and over-regulatory Administrative State. In the process, the majority deliberately overlooked the appalling facts of the Trump case, dismissing them “as present exigencies” and pronouncing that “focusing on ‘transient facts’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.” Be that as it may.

The unitary executive agenda is a Republican agenda that pre-dates Trump, which the current Roberts Court has been incrementally fulfilling for over a decade now. Monday’s ruling extends this agenda by conferring immunity on the office of the president in addition to empowering it. The notion of unitary executive has long been a matter for the Supreme Court in delineating the boundaries of power between the executive and legislative branches.

The term ‘unitary’ stems from the constitution’s vesting of all executive power in a single person rather than an executive council or a presidium. This is contrasted with the bicameral balancing of the legislative power between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Historically the Supreme Court has used this contrast to somewhat privilege the authority and actions of a president – on matters involving the entire executive branch – over the checks of the legislative branch.

Past disputes have mostly been about a president’s ‘removal powers’ vis a vis state officials in the executive branch and the ability of the legislative branch to check these powers. But lofty court rulings even on prosaic facts such as a president’s removal of a federal functionary have invariably created the usual universe of legal discourse on the unitary executive. Two schools of judicial thought – the maximalist and the minimalist – have emerged over time. None of this mattered much for the ordinary citizens, until now.

The unitary executive theory made its way to the White House as a companion to deregulation during the Reagan presidency and found almost full resonance during the second Bush Administration. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld were its prime proponents. Republican presidents would have had reasons to be annoyed with persistent Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Republican business supporters, on the other hand, were annoyed with the regulations of the Administrative State that hamstring industries from having a free run on the environment and natural resources.

President Bill Clinton expanded the oversight capacity of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, one of the singular creations of President Nixon in 1971, by hiring thousands of field inspectors and deploying them all across the land to protect the nation’s rich natural heritage. All the new hires of Clinton were fired by his Republican successor, Bush the younger. The process was replicated in the areas of health, housing, education and wherever the government was believed to have become the problem. The present Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito were exposed to embracing the unitary executive ethos during the Reagan Administration.

Judicial Pedigrees

Roberts continued under the younger Bush’s Administration along with present Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Both men were part of Bush’s legal team in the Florida presidential election case in 2000, and Kavanaugh had been part of Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. These career pedigrees provide insights into the workings of the Supreme Court and what judicial principles and philosophies they tend to embrace and what they choose to jettison in individual cases.

On the other hand, justices do not necessarily stay loyal to the presidents who appoint them. “That never happens” said the folksy President Harry Truman, even though presidents may think it would. Justices Sotomayor and Barret in a recent public discussion asserted that judges are not beholden to presidents or their parties who appointed them – for because of their lifetime appointment, judges far outlast their appointers who are done after four years or at most eight years.

Of the six conservative justices in the current Court, Clarence Thomas, the right wing maverick and the second African American justice after the great Thurgood Marshall, was appointed by President Bush the elder; Roberts (CJ) and Alito by Bush the younger; and the remaining three – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were appointed by Trump. Of the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Eva Kegan were appointed by Obama, and the most recent addition, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a Biden appointee.

In fairness, the apex court receives about 7,000 appeal requests an year and selects fewer than 150 appeal cases for adjudication. Of the 150, only a handful of cases rise to prominence on the political radar, exiting ideological passions and heightening political controversies. The rest are decided more amicably and the rulings on them pass unnoticed except by law professionals and litigators. In the vast majority of the cases, the rulings are respected and are reflective of the manifestly serious, erudite and even brilliant legal minds at work. It is in the few politically charged cases that justices are known to split along ideological and political lines, and their rulings are scrutinized for social judgment, judicial hubris and political prejudices.

Although the six-three split in the Trump case has become well known as the Court’s ideological fault (or default) line, there have been other split combinations. Three of the six conservative justices – Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett have joined the three liberal judges to constitute judicial majority in a number of key cases, including cases involving abortion medication and care as well as gun restrictions. Sometimes, Roberts and Barrett join the liberals to form a five-four majority. Justice Barett, the only female judge among the conservatives and the only judge from the South, has shown a tendency to carve her own space – sometimes joining her three female liberal colleagues and not infrequently distinguishing herself from her male conservative colleagues, especially the inflexibly conservative Clarence Thomas. If the next appointee, potentially succeeding Clarence Thomas, were to be a female justice, the Court will have more women than men for the first time in history – and a different five-four split.

The jostling, pairing and splits among the justices are also reflective of the political and cultural divisions in American society. Five of the six conservative judges are Catholics, and their collective elevation in the judiciary cannot be unrelated to the upward social mobility of American Catholics and the emergence of influential Catholic schools of thought on the political right – going by such names as “Catholic Post-Liberalism,” “Common Good Constitutionalism,” etc. Not to mention the voting shifts among American Catholics.

Traditionally, a good majority of American Catholics voted Democratic, but that stopped after the election of President Carter in 1976. Starting with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, a majority of Catholics have been voting Republican. Catholics became an important cohort of the so called Reagan Democrats. President Joe Biden is the second Catholic president after President Kennedy and perhaps more devout than the Boston playboy. Yet there is no Catholic embracing of Biden either by the clerics or the laity of the Church, as it was with Kennedy. Biden’s support of abortion rights and gender rights wins no favours from the church hierarchy or the court hierarchy.

Embattled Executive

The election of Trump as President implicated the Supreme Court at three levels. First, Trump had the rare opportunity to appoint three new judges in four years and that gave the conservatives a clear majority on the bench. Second, there was Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda without which the rolling back of some of the longstanding judicial precedents would not have been possible. Although only two of the conservative judges, Thomas and Alito who are also the oldest, are considered to be real MAGA enthusiasts, the other four justices have not been hesitant at all in joining forces to pronounce majority rulings in furtherance of their shared social conservative agenda.

The outcomes are the regressive rulings on abortion and on gun rights. The more recent ‘Chevron ruling’ belongs to the old Republican agenda that unites the traditional Republican and the new MAGA forces in achieving common ends. The new ruling handed down on June 28 overturns a 40-year old judicial precedent that has provided the framework for regulatory decision making in the federal government. The 1984 case was between Chevron Corporation, specializing in oil and gas industries, and the Natural Resources Defence Council, an environmental advocacy group, and was about a change in the interpretation of the word “source”, by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for assessing and addressing air pollution.

At issue was the EPA’s authority to make the interpretive change in the absence specific provisions in the law. In a unanimous landmark ruling, the Court rejected the appeal, confirmed the EPA’s authority to fill gaps in the law, and established what has come to be known as the “Chevron deference,” requiring judges and courts to defer to the expertise of officials at federal regulatory agencies. The overturning of the Chevron ruling will undermine the ability of government agencies to regulate everything from clean water and air quality to health care. In addition to empowering the executive president to rein in the Administrative State, the Roberts Court has arrogated to itself the power to review and reject expert opinions.

The third implication of the Trump presidency for the Court is what might be called the embattlement of the executive; specifically, the Trump presidency. There is a load of truth in Trump’s often repeated protestation that no other American president has been targeted by the impeachment and judicial processes the way he has been, both in and out of office. What is even truer is that no other American president has conducted himself as Trump did, flouting every rule and convention and abusing the power of office to personal ends. The political reality is also that the sense of embattlement is widely shared by those on the political right and including judges on the Supreme Court.

To wit, Trump’s growing popular support after every indictment and conviction. To wit as well, the assumption of judicial responsibility in the majority ruling – to rescue the unitary executive from future harassment by the zealous prosecutors and the lower courts. This the majority did by deliberately ignoring the stark facts of the case against Trump for his insurrectionary attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. The ruling dismissed the nationally witnessed and well documented attempts of Trump as “present exigencies” and “transient facts,” and proceeded to provide a solution to a problem that only Trump had created, and which the Court could and should have ended with Trump.

In opting to protect all future presidents, the Court has not contributed to resolving any of the current exigencies and transient facts. It has only aggravated them and turned the transient into something more permanent. No one knows what Special Counsel Jack Smith is planning to do to restart his case against Trump after he has been quite severely handicapped by the Supreme Court. It is the same with all the other prosecutors and lower courts battling Trump.

The uncertainties over Trump’s cases are new additions to the already confused state of the American judicial system because of the Supreme Court’s overturning of longstanding precedents on abortion, gun restrictions, voting rights, affirmative action, and now in administrative law. The great resolution either way is being left to the people in the November presidential election. But the people are also handicapped in a presidential election in America because they cannot directly determine the outcome, but must filter it through the Electoral College system.

All News Advertisement

Features

Power crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart

Published

2 days ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

A file photo of Buddhist monks engaged in a protest

For more than a century, Sri Lankan society has lived with a quiet contradiction at the heart of its religious life. On the one hand, the Buddhist monk is revered as the embodiment of moral discipline, selfrestraint, and renunciation. On the other, the modern monk has become a public figure, political actor, administrator, media personality, and in some cases power broker whose influence extends far beyond the temple. This contradiction has been tolerated, even celebrated, for decades. But recent events, most notably a widely publicised case involving a senior monk accused of grave moral misconduct, have forced the country to confront a painful truth: the institutional conditions that make such scandals possible are not new. They are the predictable outcome of a long historical process that H. L. Seneviratne described with remarkable clarity in The Work of Kings. The moral deterioration visible today is not an aberration. It is the culmination of a centurylong transformation in the identity, function, and authority of the Sangha.

To understand how we arrived at this moment, it is necessary to revisit the argument Seneviratne made nearly three decades ago. His thesis was simple but profound: the modern Sri Lankan monkhood has taken on the ‘work of kings.’ By this he meant that monks, instead of confining themselves to the renunciant life prescribed by the Vinaya, have assumed the secular responsibilities once associated with precolonial kingship, such as protecting the religion, organising society, guiding the nation, and enforcing moral order. This shift, he argued, was not a natural evolution of Buddhist tradition but a modern invention shaped by colonialism, nationalism, and the anxieties of a society struggling to redefine itself in the face of foreign domination. The monk became a symbol of national identity, a guardian of cultural authenticity, and a leader in the struggle for political autonomy. In the process, the boundaries that once separated the monastic from the worldly began to dissolve.

Transformation

The consequences of this transformation were not immediately visible. For decades, the activist monk was celebrated as a patriot, a reformer, and a moral guide. His involvement in education, social welfare, and nationalist mobilisation was seen as a necessary response to colonial pressures and missionary competition. But beneath the surface, the foundations of monastic discipline were slowly eroding. The Vinaya, which had served for centuries as a rigorous framework for regulating monastic life, was increasingly overshadowed by the demands of public engagement. The communal structures that once ensured accountability, senior supervision, collective confession, and the daily rhythms of monastic routine, were weakened by the pressures of modernity. Monks who travelled constantly, managed institutions, or lived independently in urban temples found themselves outside the traditional systems of oversight that had long protected the integrity of the Sangha.

Scandal

It is within this historical context that the recent scandal must be understood. The case shocked the nation not only because of the severity of the allegations but because it shattered the public’s assumption that the monkhood remains a bastion of moral purity. Yet the shock itself reveals a collective denial. For years, Sri Lankan society has been aware, sometimes quietly, sometimes openly—of the growing gap between the ideal of the monk and the realities of modern monastic life. Stories of misconduct, financial irregularities, political manipulation, and abuse of authority have circulated with increasing frequency. But each incident has been treated as an isolated failure, a personal weakness, or an unfortunate exception. What has been missing is recognition that these incidents are symptoms of a deeper structural problem.

Seneviratne’s analysis helps illuminate this problem. When monks take on the work of kings, they inevitably enter domains of power that expose them to temptations the Vinaya was designed to avoid. Handling money, managing institutions, cultivating political patrons, and exercising authority over laypeople create opportunities for ego, ambition, and moral compromise. The monk who becomes a public figure is no longer shielded by the anonymity and humility of the renunciant life. Instead, he becomes a celebrity, a leader, and in some cases an object of uncritical devotion. This elevation brings with it a dangerous form of immunity. Laypeople who revere a monk for his public achievements may hesitate to question his behaviour. Politicians who rely on monastic support may protect him from scrutiny. The media, which often treats monks as moral authorities, may be reluctant to investigate allegations that challenge the sanctity of the robe.

The recent scandal illustrates how these dynamics can converge. The monk at the centre of the case was not an obscure figure. He was a respected preacher, charismatic leader, and head of a prominent institution. His public image was built on years of service, teaching, and community engagement. Yet it was precisely this public stature that allowed him to operate without meaningful oversight. The institutional structures around him, administrators, lay supporters, and junior monks, were either unwilling or unable to challenge his authority. The very qualities that made him a respected figure in the eyes of the public also made him untouchable within his own institution. When allegations finally emerged, they revealed not only personal wrongdoing but a systemic failure of accountability.

Failure that is not unique

This failure is not unique to one temple or one monk. It reflects a broader pattern within the modern Sangha. As monastic institutions have grown in size, wealth, and influence, their internal governance has struggled to keep pace. Many temples operate as semiautonomous entities controlled by a single monk or a small group of monks. Financial transparency is limited, administrative oversight is weak, and the mechanisms for addressing misconduct are often informal or ineffective. The traditional structures of monastic discipline, such as the Sangharama procedures for adjudicating offences, are rarely used in modern contexts, partly because they require collective participation and partly because they are illsuited to the complexities of contemporary institutional life. In practice, this means that monks who wield significant authority can act with little fear of internal sanction.

The politicisation of the Sangha has further complicated matters. Since the midtwentieth century, monks have played an increasingly prominent role in electoral politics, nationalist movements, and public policy debates. This involvement has given them access to political networks that can be mobilised to protect their interests. It has also created a culture in which monks are valued not for their adherence to the Vinaya but for their ability to influence public opinion, mobilise voters, or lend moral legitimacy to political causes. In such an environment, the monk who is politically useful may be shielded from criticism, while the monk who adheres strictly to the renunciant ideal may find himself marginalised or ignored.

The result is a profound distortion of monastic identity. The monk who once sought liberation from worldly attachments is now encouraged to cultivate influence, authority, and public recognition. The monk who once lived under the strict supervision of senior elders now operates in a world where independence is celebrated and oversight is minimal. The monk who once relied on laypeople for basic sustenance now controls vast resources, manages institutions, and commands the loyalty of thousands of followers. This inversion of traditional roles has created a fertile ground for moral deterioration.

Yet it would be a mistake to interpret this deterioration as evidence that the Sangha as a whole is corrupt. Many monks continue to live lives of remarkable discipline, humility, and spiritual dedication. In remote forest monasteries, small village temples, and meditation centres across the country, monks quietly uphold the ancient ideals of the renunciant life. They are not the ones who appear on television, lead political rallies, or manage large institutions. Their work is invisible, their influence subtle, and their commitment unwavering. The crisis facing the Sangha today is not a crisis of individual morality but a crisis of institutional identity. It is the product of a centurylong transformation that has blurred the boundaries between the monastic and the secular, the spiritual and the political, the renunciant and the worldly.

If Sri Lanka is to address this crisis, it must begin by acknowledging the structural nature of the problem. The temptation to treat each scandal as an isolated incident must be resisted. Instead, the country must confront the uncomfortable reality that the modern configuration of monastic life is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the Vinaya. The Sangha cannot simultaneously function as a political force, a social service provider, a media institution, and a spiritual community without compromising its integrity. The more monks are drawn into the world, the more vulnerable they become to the moral dangers that the Buddha warned against.

Reform, therefore, must focus not only on punishing individual offenders but on rethinking the institutional structures that enable misconduct. This includes strengthening internal governance, enhancing financial transparency, restoring the authority of senior elders, and reestablishing the communal practices that once ensured accountability. It also requires a broader cultural shift in how laypeople relate to monks. Blind devotion must give way to informed respect. Reverence must be balanced with responsibility. The robe must be honoured, but it must not be used as a shield against scrutiny.

Seneviratne’s work offers a valuable starting point for this rethinking. His analysis reminds us that the crisis facing the Sangha is not the result of moral decline alone but of historical forces that reshaped the identity of the monkhood. By tracing the evolution of the activist monk, he shows how the Sangha became entangled in the political and social structures of the modern nationstate. This entanglement has brought both benefits and dangers. It has allowed monks to play important roles in education, social welfare, and national development. But it has also exposed them to the corrupting influences of power, wealth, and public acclaim.

The challenge now is to disentangle the Sangha from these influences without undermining its ability to serve society. This will not be easy. The activist monk has become deeply embedded in the cultural and political fabric of the country. Many laypeople expect monks to be leaders, reformers, and guardians of national identity. Politicians rely on monastic support to legitimise their agendas. Media institutions depend on monks for content, commentary, and moral authority. Reversing this trend will require a collective effort from monks, laypeople, and political leaders alike.

Ultimately, the future of the Sangha depends on its ability to reclaim the renunciant ideal that lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism. This does not mean withdrawing from society entirely, but it does mean reestablishing the boundaries that protect the monk from the dangers of worldly involvement. It means recognising that the true strength of the Sangha lies not in its political influence or institutional power but in its moral authority, its spiritual discipline, and its commitment to the path of liberation. The recent scandal, painful as it is, may serve as a catalyst for this reevaluation. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the modern monastic system and forced the country to confront the consequences of a centurylong transformation.

To understand how the Vihara Devalegam Act relates to the perceived moral deformation of the clergy, it is necessary to examine how property management, state law, and monastic discipline intersect in the modern era. Historically stemming from the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance No. 19 of 1931, this act serves as the primary legal framework governing the ‘temporalities’—meaning the secular wealth, extensive landholdings, and material donations belonging to Buddhist temples and shrines. While ancient kings granted these vast tracts of land to support the monkhood’s spiritual pursuits, the modern codification of this law has inadvertently fostered a system where property rights frequently supersede spiritual accountability.

The core of the crisis lies in the commercialisation of the monastic order that this legal framework enables. By treating temple lands as economic assets and vesting absolute administrative power in individual chief monks or lay trustees, the act has contributed to the rise of what critics term a monastic middle class. Access to vast, unregulated financial resources, rent from lands, and corporate donations has fundamentally shifted the focus of certain segments of the clergy away from the traditional path of worldly renunciation and spiritual guidance. Instead, it has driven a preoccupation with business investments, the accumulation of private capital, and luxury lifestyles, which deeply alienates a public looking to the Sangha for moral leadership.

The institutional flaws embedded in the Vihara Devalegam Act find a stark, real-world manifestation in the recent criminal case involving Venerable Pallegama Hemarathana Thero. As the chief priest of Anuradhapura and the custodian of the Atamasthana—the eight highly venerated Buddhist shrines, including the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi—Hemarathana Thero occupied one of the most powerful and wealthy positions within the Sri Lankan Sangha. His arrest on charges of sexual abuse of a minor girl perfectly illustrates how the structural defects of the Act facilitate not only moral decay but also the systemic obstruction of justice.

The core of this intersection lies in the vast, unaccountable wealth generated by the temporalities of the Anuradhapura shrines. Under the Vihara Devalegam Act, the chief custodian exercises immense, virtually unchecked control over temple revenues, state-backed land management, and millions of rupees in daily donations from millions of global pilgrims. It is precisely this immense financial liquidity that enabled the alleged deployment of vast sums of money to the victim’s family.

Furthermore, the situation underscores the profound policy failures cited regarding the helplessness of the monastic hierarchy and state enforcement. When child protection authorities initially attempted to act, the National Child Protection Authority noted severe delays and institutional resistance, stating they practically had to force the police to execute the arrest. The monk’s immediate retreat to a private hospital in Colombo upon the advancement of the criminal probe, followed by his release on bail, mirrors the exact loop described where wealthy monastics deploy high-priced legal defence teams funded directly or indirectly by their institutional positions. Because the Vihara Devalegam Act does not provide a mechanism for the immediate, unconditional forfeiture of temporal administrative rights upon a criminal indictment, the accused retains his structural power throughout the legal process. The Pallegama Thero scandal stands as definitive proof that without a fundamental overhaul of how temple wealth is legally governed and disciplined, the material benefits guaranteed by ancient temporalities will continue to shield the worst elements of moral deformation from the rule of law.

If Sri Lanka can learn from this moment and if it can recognise the structural roots of the crisis and commit to meaningful reform, then the Sangha may yet emerge stronger, more disciplined, and more faithful to its ancient ideals. But if the country continues to treat each scandal as an isolated failure and if it continues to ignore the deeper institutional problems that Seneviratne identified, then the moral deterioration we see today will only deepen. The work of kings, when performed by monks, carries a heavy price. It is time to decide whether that price is worth paying.

by Professor Amarasiri de Silva

Features

Kondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary

Published

2 days ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

The Power and Energy Ministry’s drive towards energy security and renewable energy expansion received a major boost yesterday with the signing of a tripartite cooperation agreement for the development of the 150 MW Kondachchi Wind Power Project and an integrated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Mannar.

The agreement was signed at the Ministry of Power auditorium under the patronage of Power Minister Anura Karunatilaka and Deputy Power Minister Arkam Ilyas.

Speaking at the event, Ministry Secretary G. M. R. D. Aponsu described the project as a transformative investment that would strengthen the country’s electricity network while supporting Sri Lanka’s transition towards cleaner energy sources.

“The Kondachchi Wind Power Project represents a significant milestone in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy journey. By combining large-scale wind generation with advanced battery energy storage technology, we are creating a more resilient and reliable power system capable of meeting future energy demands while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels,” Aponsu said.

The project will be developed at Silavathurai in the Kondachchi area of Mannar on lands owned by the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation. It is expected to utilise some 31 modern wind turbines with a total installed capacity of at least 150 MW.

Aponsu said the inclusion of an integrated battery storage facility would help address the variability associated with wind power generation and ensure stable electricity supply to the national grid.

“The battery energy storage component is a key feature of this project. It will enable the efficient integration of renewable energy into the grid and enhance overall system stability, which is essential as Sri Lanka increases the share of renewables in its energy mix,” he said.

According to the Ministry, the wind farm is expected to generate nearly 525 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually, significantly reducing the country’s expenditure on imported fuel and strengthening national energy security.

The project is also expected to contribute to Sri Lanka’s climate commitments by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 372,750 tonnes annually.

“This investment delivers both economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support sustainable development objectives and help Sri Lanka move closer to achieving its renewable energy and climate targets,” Aponsu noted.

The project will be implemented under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement using the Build, Own and Operate (BOO) model. The Asian Development Bank is providing technical and financial advisory support through its Transaction Advisory Services programme.

The signing ceremony was attended by Pradeep Perera, Chairman of the National System Operator (Pvt) Ltd., and Takeyo Koike, Head of Market Development and Public-Private Partnership Division of the ADB, among other distinguished guests.

The Ministry said comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments and avifaunal studies have been undertaken to ensure minimal impacts on bird populations, nearby communities and agricultural lands. A dedicated 220-kilovolt transmission system will also be constructed to connect the project to the national grid.

“The Kondachchi Wind Farm is a strategic national project that will help secure Sri Lanka’s energy future while accelerating the country’s transition towards sustainable and affordable electricity generation,” Aponsu said.

Energy sector experts view the project as one of the most important renewable energy initiatives currently being pursued in Sri Lanka, combining utility-scale wind generation with modern energy storage technology to enhance grid reliability and long-term energy sustainability.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Saudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey

Published

2 days ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

Ambassador Al-Kahtani

Interview with Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka

Saudi Arabia has once again demonstrated its unparalleled capacity to manage one of the world’s largest annual religious gatherings, with this year’s Hajj pilgrimage concluding successfully despite extreme temperatures and the immense logistical challenge of accommodating more than 1.7 million pilgrims from around the world.

In an exclusive interview with The Island, Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka, described the 2026 Hajj season as a resounding success, crediting the achievement to the visionary leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister, and the coordinated efforts of multiple government agencies working around the clock to serve pilgrims.

The Ambassador noted that nearly 3,500 Sri Lankan pilgrims participated in this year’s Hajj under the quota allocated to Sri Lanka, benefiting from enhanced healthcare services, sophisticated crowd-management systems, expanded shaded areas and cutting-edge digital solutions introduced by the Kingdom.

With Saudi Arabia continuing to invest heavily in infrastructure, technology and pilgrim services under Vision 2030, Ambassador Al-Kahtani said the Kingdom remains committed to ensuring that pilgrims from around the world perform their religious duties in safety, comfort and tranquility.

The Saudi envoy also highlighted the growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka, emphasising expanding cooperation not only in Hajj affairs but also in trade, investment, education, culture and institutional exchanges.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: How do you assess this year’s Hajj season?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: This year’s Hajj season was a resounding success, thanks to the Almighty Allah and the integrated efforts of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, led by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister. This success was reflected in the efficiency of crowd management, the quality of services provided to the Hajj pilgrims and the effective coordination among the various relevant authorities, which enabled pilgrims to perform their rituals in an atmosphere of security, tranquility and ease.

Q: How many Sri Lankan pilgrims performed Hajj this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The number of Hajj pilgrims from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reached approximately 3,500, within the quota allocated to Sri Lanka for this season.

Q: Are there any discussions regarding increasing Sri Lanka’s quota in the future?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:Hajj quotas are determined according to approved regulatory mechanisms that take into account a range of considerations. The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continue to study various aspects related to developing Hajj services and accommodating the allocated numbers for all countries, in coordination with the concerned parties.

Q: What were the most prominent special arrangements implemented this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The operational plans for this season focused on enhancing the safety and comfort of the Hajj pilgrims, especially given the climatic conditions and high temperatures. Measures included expanding shaded areas, increasing water distribution points and enhancing health and ambulance services, in addition to developing the transportation system and traffic management within the holy sites.

Q: What are the most prominent digital systems and smart services that were provided?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:The Kingdom continues to implement its digital transformation objectives for the Hajj and Umrah system. The scope of electronic services offered through the Nusuk platform and application has been expanded, along with the development of digital systems for issuing permits, managing crowds, guidance and health services. This contributes to increasing the efficiency of services and improving the pilgrim’s experience at all stages of their journey.

Q: How were the challenges of overcrowding and heat addressed?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities adopted an integrated crowd-management system based on modern technologies and real-time data analysis. This was coupled with intensified health-awareness campaigns, expanded organised movement routes and increased deployment of field, medical and emergency teams. These measures support the safety of the Hajj pilgrims and reduce the risks associated with crowd density and climatic conditions.

Q: Were there special services for the elderly and sick?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Yes. The Kingdom paid special attention to the elderly and people with special health needs by providing specialized medical services, assistive transportation and facilities equipped to meet their needs, in addition to field teams working to provide humanitarian support and necessary healthcare throughout the Hajj period.

Q: How successful was the Kingdom in combating irregular Hajj permits?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continued to rigorously implement the regulations and instructions governing Hajj, utilising modern technologies and advanced monitoring procedures to reduce violations related to irregular Hajj. These efforts contributed to enhancing the safety of pilgrims, improving crowd-management efficiency and maintaining the smooth flow of movement within the holy sites.

Q: How would you describe Saudi-Sri Lankan cooperation in organising Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Cooperation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka is characterised by continuous and constructive coordination in all matters related to Hajj. The relevant authorities in both countries work jointly to ensure the provision of the best services for Sri Lankan pilgrims and enable them to perform their rituals with ease and peace of mind.

Q: How many Hajj pilgrims were there globally, and what were the main challenges?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: According to official statistics, the number of Hajj pilgrims this year reached 1,707,301 from various countries around the world. The main challenges included managing large crowds, ensuring public safety and providing health, transportation and accommodation services within a specific geographical and temporal scope. These challenges were addressed through advanced and integrated operational plans, which contributed to the smooth and successful completion of the Hajj season.

Q: Are there any future expansion projects?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The Kingdom continues to implement strategic development projects within the framework of Vision 2030, including developing the infrastructure in Makkah and the Holy Sites, and enhancing transportation networks and smart services. This contributes to raising the quality of services provided to pilgrims and Umrah performers and improving their long-term experience.

Q: How are Saudi-Sri Lankan relations strengthened outside the context of Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka are witnessing continuous development in many areas, including political, economic, trade, cultural and educational cooperation, in addition to developing exchanges between institutions and the private sector. This reflects the two countries’ keenness to strengthen the bilateral partnership and achieve common interests.

Q: What message would you like to convey to Sri Lankan Muslims?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: We extend our sincere congratulations to the Hajj pilgrims who have completed their Hajj rituals, and we ask Almighty Allah to accept their pilgrimage. We also assure Muslims in Sri Lanka that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia places serving the Two Holy Mosques and the guests of Almighty Allah at the forefront of its priorities and continues to develop the Hajj and Umrah system to achieve the highest standards of quality and safety.

By Ifham Nizam